Four injured in early morning shooting

[villager]

Four injured in early morning shooting

WEST PALM BEACH- Around 3:00 this morning shots were fired from a car outside the Seabreeze Restaurant and Club located at Okeechobee Road and Haverhill. Deputies found four injured victims upon arriving at the scene. The victims were transported to, St. Mary's Hospital for non-life threatening injuries.

The victims tried to flee the area after hearing gun shots, but three were struck and the fourth was cut on her left foot while running through the crowd. Other patrons made it to their vehicles and fled the scene. Though some vehicles were also caught in the cross fire, no further injuries occurred.

<snip>


Read more: http://www.cbs12.com/articles/morning-4732076-four-injured.html#ixzz1KN1ykBPW

[PavePusher]

1. Unrec'd for cite to lousy reporting.

"crossfire" implies more than one source of shooting.

"Four injured in early..." implies all four were injured by the gunfire. Someone is attempting to obfuscate and pad the stats.

[villager]

Yes, I guess the four wounded were just *faking it...* Your usual empathy, on display!

:thumbsup:

[PavePusher]

7. Excellent insinuation....

especially as I said nothing directly or indirectly about my feelings for the victims.

Your vileness is exceeded by few others on this board. Good luck with that.

[petronius]

8. This is not the first time we've seen you post a news article (sans comment), and then chide others

for a lack of empathy. Yet in all of these OPs I've not once noticed you express any concern for the victims yourself. It's as if you see these events merely as tools you can use to accuse others of a lack of compassion. There's a word for that sort of behavior, I'm sure. :shrug:

For my part, as always, I hope the victims recover quickly and comfortably and that the criminal is caught...

[villager]

10. so -- posting the new infers lack of empathy?

I knew there were lots of amoral verbal contortions in this group, but that's a good one, even by the standards here!

[petronius]

11. No, try again. Nothing in the thread implies anything about anyone's level of empathy

The only contortion (hypocrisy is the word I was suggesting; I guess you need things to be extra-obvious) here is yours - trying to infer non-caring from the same behavior you exhibit. And it's a despicable contortion, in that you use the suffering of others to set up your insult...

[villager]

15. "No, try again. Nothing in the thread implies anything about anyone's level of empathy"

Good. Then I guess the earlier post wasn't actually saying that posting news somehow, ipso facto, connotes lack of empathy for the victims.

Especially since there's a refusal to take to task one's fellow travelers for "unreccing" due to use of the word crossfire, et al, with nary a breath of empathy of for the actual victms.

Wouldn't want a double standard to suddenly crop up in this misbegotten forum, now would we!?

[petronius]

16. Keep digging, dude. If you're lucky, maybe the hole will collapse in on you and conceal your shame

and hypocrisy.

But until that happens, I suggest that you refrain from posting on the internet until you have a better grasp of logic and the English language.

(You got one thing right, however: the earlier post wasn't saying anything at all about posting news. When you figure out what it was saying, then maybe you'll understand what's so despicable about your own behavior.)

[villager]

21. Right. Unable to actually converse or reply to topic at hand. Got it.

not that I'm, you know, surprised or anything.

[petronius]

26. Do you seriously need this spelled out for you at a grade-school level?

Fine - put down your lemonade, spit out your chewing gum, clear away any and all distractions, and do try to follow along:

1) You post a news article without comment. A DUer comments on the article, and you rail at that DUer for not expressing empathy, forgetting that you didn't see fit to do so yourself. That's the hypocritical part.

2) This is a recurring behavior, showing that, for you, these events are merely markers in your game of snark and insult. That's the despicable part.

3) You are unable to see the problem, even after a series of what I would call clearly-worded and simple posts. That's the part that should embarrass you.

Now at this point you have a choice: you can slink away with some vague and pathetic comment about how I'm not addressing the topic, which will impress nobody. Or, you can recognize that you've behaved like a jerk, apologize to the DUer you insulted above (was it PavePusher?), and I for one will be glad to reset my opinion of you back to neutral...

[rrneck]

13. He has tremendous empathy for his own ideology. nt

[LibertyFox]

35. Warped sense of empathy

I always get the feeling from antis that empathy means going "you're right, we should totally disarm because of these relatively uncommon events."

[villager]

6. DU dupes, for emphasis...

:thumbsup:

[flamin lib]

9. This reply (not the author) is the dumbist, most pathetic reach

at straw I've ever seen.

[monmouth]

2. Also, please vote in the poll on Rick Scott on the right...People not

liking him too much..

[jpak]

3. More guns - more mayhem

yup

[PavePusher]

4. Stats, please... n/t

[DonP]

5. Not according to any reliable source

The CDC, FBI et. al. are still reporting record low crime and crime with guns rates.

Who to believe, the FBI and CDC or an anonymous keyboard commando that contradicts themselves every third post (which is typically the same subject posted 3 or 4 times)?

Hmmm? Tough call.

But I'm gonna go with the US Govt. on this one.

[Starboard Tack]

12. How low would record low be? Current stats please

30,000 gun deaths a year? Very acceptable! Especially when compared to 4,400 military deaths in Iraq in 8 YEARS.
Or less than 50/year in the UK

[rrneck]

14. Where did you get that number? nt

[Starboard Tack]

18. Which number are you referring to? There were 4

[rrneck]

20. Oops. Yeah. The 30k. nt

[Starboard Tack]

31. Here are a couple of links

There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000.<4> The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides,<5> with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide, while 12,632 (40.5%) were homicide deaths.<6[br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

On this link you'll see the per capita figures. Note the US has approximately 10x that of Canada and !00x that of UK.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

I'm not saying the reason for this is 2A or the proliferation of CC permits. I think the answer is way more complex. But I'm not convinced that the solution is more guns, even in very safe hands.

[Straw Man]

17. Compared to WHAT?

Especially when compared to 4,400 military deaths in Iraq in 8 YEARS.

That's US military deaths. Add anywhere from 100,000 to 650,000 Iraqi deaths (depending on whose estimates you believe), and the picture changes somewhat, no?

http://web.mit.edu/CIS/pdf/Human_Cost_of_War.pdf

[Starboard Tack]

19. I wasn't counting those killed by Americans with guns

It was a number, you know, like when the toters talk about road deaths, only more relevant.

[Straw Man]

28. I don't know why you weren't...

...unless it's because you wanted to misrepresent post-invasion Iraq as a comparatively safe place. It wasn't. But you knew that.

Yes, it was a number: a meaningless, misleading, irrelevant number.

[gejohnston]

22. all unnatural deaths are unacceptable

antis seem to think murder, suicide, or fatal accident by any other method is a non issue. But then, antis really don't give a rat's ass about crime or suicide prevention. It is about culture war and irrational fears. No more no less. If a mass murderer used used a bomb, machete, or home made flame thrower Helmke would not be on TV, you would not be posting about it.
Your "gun deaths" is a distraction from the real issue. You also forgot to adjust for population, culture, etc. The vast majority are suicides and you know that. That also includes justifiable homicides by both civilians and police. 96 percent of all murders are between people with criminal records.
But then, explaining criminal science and history to antis is like trying to explain carbon 14 and other half life dating to a room full of creationists.

[Starboard Tack]

32. How do you define "anti"? Sounds like a broad brush.

They must be horrible people to not "give a rat's ass about crime and suicide prevention", a very important field, and one in which I have worked. Personally I am anti carrying a gun without good reason. Of course, "good reason" is very subjective and I realize that many feel that wearing a gun is as natural as wearing shoes.

[krispos42]

29. Oooo, statistical FAIL

I ripped some RWer in an editorial in the Star Tribune a few years ago over that kind of logic.


30,000 gun-related deaths per year in a country of 300,000,000 is 10 per 100,000 per year.


4,400 military deaths in Iraq in 8 years is 550 a year... in a military population of 130,000. That's 423 per 100,000 per year.

Of course, it gets even worse for you. About 13,000 of those 30,000 gun-related deaths a year are actually homicides, so the actual gun homicide rate is actually 4.3 per 100,000 per year... or one percent that of US soldiers in Iraq.


Finally, if you're a fan of visual aids, gnaw on this for a while:






I've got some really great news for you... traffic deaths involving Pierce-Arrow automobiles are at record lows, so obviously the highways are the safest they've ever been.

[Starboard Tack]

33. US 4.2 versus UK 1.4

That's exactly 3 times as many. Nice try, but the numbers don't lie

[krispos42]

34. And their homicide rate is up 40% over the last couple of decades;

ours is down over 40%.

It's the green line... the ratio of US to UK homicide rates. When I was born it was 10:1. Now it's 3:1.


Besides, I thought they only had 50 homicides a year in England? 30,000 vs. 50... that's 600:1, not 3:1.


A virtual ban on gun ownership, 4.4 million police-monitored surveillance cameras... you'd think their homicide rate would decline, not increase.

[Starboard Tack]

36. So, you're saying what exactly?

That even though their rate is up 40% and ours is down 40% we might catch up in another century or so?

[krispos42]

41. I've painted you a picture and explained it in small words.

At this point, either you're getting it and won't admit it, or am not getting it and never will.

[rl6214]

25. More criminals, more mayhem

YUP

YUP

YUP

[GreenStormCloud]

23. More dancing in the blood by an anti. Nothing really new. N/T

[rl6214]

24. Criminals doing criminal things

What are you going to do about it?

[PavePusher]

27. Ban non-criminals.

It's the only way criminals will be safe.....

:sarcasm: , if I must.

[aikoaiko]

30. Thank you for reminding us why the good guys might want to have a firearm for self-defense.

[cleanhippie]

37. Was there a point to this current events story you posted?

[Atypical Liberal]

38. Unrecommended for no policy commentary.

I unrecommend all news posts that provide no policy commentary by the poster.

[rl6214]

39. Agreed, otherwise it's just another drive by posting

[oneshooter]

40. Unrec because it's villager. n/t